What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5465524 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5465524?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5465524?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5465524?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13380746-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5465524 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5465524?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5465524?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5465524?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13380746-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5465524 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5465524 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] at 11.59 am on Monday 13 April 2026.
Cheri Swift must pay [The landlord/s] $28.00 immediately, being the filing fee.
The application for rent arrears was withdrawn.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing. The tenant was assisted by a representative.
The tenancy of the premises commenced on 9 May 2025. This is a periodic tenancy
The brief background is as follows; • The tenant obtained a conditional agreement to purchase a property. • The tenant gave the landlord a 21-day notice to terminate her tenancy. The notice is dated 30 November 2025. The email address for the landlord in the notice is correct. It is deemed to have been served on the landlord, despite the landlord saying that they had never received it. • On 11 December 2025, the tenant received notice that her property purchase was cancelled. • The tenant contacted the landlord by phone seeking to withdraw her 21- day notice. • On 12 December 2025, the landlord issued a 90-day notice to terminate the tenancy. The landlord says that the notice was raised on instructions from the landlord that had been received some time earlier. Under the terms of that notice, the tenancy was to end on 13 March 2026.
The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
Section 54 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides; Tribunal may declare retaliatory notice of no effect (1) Within 28 working days after receipt of a notice terminating tenancy, being a notice that complies with the requirements of section 51...., the tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order declaring that the notice is of no effect on the ground that, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power ,authority or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy.
The notice which the tenant says was retaliatory, is dated 12 December 2025.
The tenant’s application to the Tribunal to declare the notice retaliatory is dated 10 March 2026. The period between 12 December 2025 and 10 March 2026 is more than 28 working days.
In Realty House Whakatane Ltd v Eschbank [2020] NZDC 16081, the District Court held that the time limit in s.54 RTA was “mandatory” rather than “directory”. The Court held: “In my view, s. 54 is jurisdictional, and absent an application made within the time limit I consider that the Tenancy Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain any application for a declaration that notice is of a retaliatory nature. While I accept that the Tribunal does have the power to extend time limits, it seems to me that those provisions should not ordinarily be used in relation to consideration of issues arising under s .54, with the possible exception of a very short overrun of a day or two caused by circumstances beyond a tenant’s control such as documents being lost in the post or computer or internet outage or inaccessibility.”
The circumstances of this case do not indicate a “very short overrun.” The tenant’s application to have the landlord’s notice declared retaliatory and therefore invalid is accordingly dismissed, as it is out of time. As a result of this decision, I am not required to consider the issue of the landlord’s motivation in issuing the notice to terminate the tenancy.
The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy.
The tenancy ended on 13 March 2026, which is less than 90 days ago. The requirements of section 64(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 are satisfied.
Commonly, the Tribunal would order make an order granting the landlord immediate possession in these circumstances. I have extended the time for the landlord to be granted possession due to the tenant’s health and time required to find alternative accommodation.
The landlord withdrew the claim for rent arrears.
As Cheri Swift has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in this matter and suppression of the landlord’s name and details is ordered. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing and the tenant’s application for name suppression is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5465524 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] at 11.59 am on Monday 13 April 2026.
Cheri Swift must pay [The landlord/s] $28.00 immediately, being the filing fee.
The application for rent arrears was withdrawn.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing. The tenant was assisted by a representative.
The tenancy of the premises commenced on 9 May 2025. This is a periodic tenancy
The brief background is as follows; • The tenant obtained a conditional agreement to purchase a property. • The tenant gave the landlord a 21-day notice to terminate her tenancy. The notice is dated 30 November 2025. The email address for the landlord in the notice is correct. It is deemed to have been served on the landlord, despite the landlord saying that they had never received it. • On 11 December 2025, the tenant received notice that her property purchase was cancelled. • The tenant contacted the landlord by phone seeking to withdraw her 21- day notice. • On 12 December 2025, the landlord issued a 90-day notice to terminate the tenancy. The landlord says that the notice was raised on instructions from the landlord that had been received some time earlier. Under the terms of that notice, the tenancy was to end on 13 March 2026.
The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
Section 54 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides; Tribunal may declare retaliatory notice of no effect (1) Within 28 working days after receipt of a notice terminating tenancy, being a notice that complies with the requirements of section 51...., the tenant may apply to the Tribunal for an order declaring that the notice is of no effect on the ground that, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power ,authority or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy.
The notice which the tenant says was retaliatory, is dated 12 December 2025.
The tenant’s application to the Tribunal to declare the notice retaliatory is dated 10 March 2026. The period between 12 December 2025 and 10 March 2026 is more than 28 working days.
In Realty House Whakatane Ltd v Eschbank [2020] NZDC 16081, the District Court held that the time limit in s.54 RTA was “mandatory” rather than “directory”. The Court held: “In my view, s. 54 is jurisdictional, and absent an application made within the time limit I consider that the Tenancy Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain any application for a declaration that notice is of a retaliatory nature. While I accept that the Tribunal does have the power to extend time limits, it seems to me that those provisions should not ordinarily be used in relation to consideration of issues arising under s .54, with the possible exception of a very short overrun of a day or two caused by circumstances beyond a tenant’s control such as documents being lost in the post or computer or internet outage or inaccessibility.”
The circumstances of this case do not indicate a “very short overrun.” The tenant’s application to have the landlord’s notice declared retaliatory and therefore invalid is accordingly dismissed, as it is out of time. As a result of this decision, I am not required to consider the issue of the landlord’s motivation in issuing the notice to terminate the tenancy.
The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy.
The tenancy ended on 13 March 2026, which is less than 90 days ago. The requirements of section 64(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 are satisfied.
Commonly, the Tribunal would order make an order granting the landlord immediate possession in these circumstances. I have extended the time for the landlord to be granted possession due to the tenant’s health and time required to find alternative accommodation.
The landlord withdrew the claim for rent arrears.
As Cheri Swift has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in this matter and suppression of the landlord’s name and details is ordered. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing and the tenant’s application for name suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5465524 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5465524 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions